Hi Adrian Thanks for the heads up. We were probably all a bit burried in work and neglected ceph a bit too much.
James Page <james.p...@ubuntu.com> writes: > Hi Adrian > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 at 20:34 Adrian Bunk <b...@stusta.de> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> first of all thanks for your past work on Ceph. >> >> The current status of the Ceph packages [1] does not look good. >> >> src:ceph has 3 RC bugs, from "maintainer address bounces" >> to "crashes since the latest NMU". >> > > I'll sort through those (see below). I had a short chat with James during the OpenStack Summit and I also intend to continue maintaining ceph. But it's really not feasible to do this alone (or even just me and James). So any help would be appreciated. Regarding the maintainer adress I would like to keep it pointing to the ceph-maintainers mailinglist. I like the idea of working together with the other distro maintainers. James said he will contact the mailinglist admin to see if we can configure the list in a way that it automatically accepts mails from the BTS (and other Debian systems). As already stated in the bug report, having a config snippet that works would be appreciated and speed this up. > > If you still intend to maintain Ceph, do the emails from the BTS >> actually reach you? If not, a list at Alioth might be a better option. > > >> It would also be OK if you would state that there is noone left active >> among the Ceph Maintainers, and that I can orphan the package for >> finding new maintainers. >> > > I'd like to continue maintaining Ceph in Debian; my time can be a little > sporadic as it is with a number of maintainers, so doing this by myself is > not a sustainable option so maybe a request for help is more appropriate > now than full orphaning. > > I fully intent to work on pushing the work I've done for Ubuntu on Ceph > Jewel packaging back into Debian at the start of November, but I really do > need help for testing of this. I can do some basic testing using VMs, but I also don't have a fancy test lab at hand... > > >> >> Regarding ceph-dkms, this is only in experimental and has an RC bug >> that it doesn't work with the jessie kernel. >> Is there anything left that is not in the upstream kernel? >> > > Not really - I think we should just drop that package. I completely agree that this package can be dropped. I think Dimitry insisted in keeping it during the time when he was still the primary maintainer of ceph. But he as stepped down since then. I have now requested it's removal. > > Note that we really do have a problem with upgrades in Debian - going > directly from firefly to jewel is an offline upgrade (at best). But maybe > that is better than the currently upstream unsupported version we have in > testing. We at least have to document this somewhere. I doubt that there are many production clusters still using the Debian firefly version from jessie as it's quite old and lacking many features. Gaudenz -- PGP: 836E 4F81 EFBB ADA7 0852 79BF A97A 7702 BAF9 1EF5
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
